NRA invests millions in schools....for shooting sports

[Puffnstuff]

See post #98 troll.

ROFL

 

[Genx87]

ROFL

Triggered

 

[Puffnstuff]

Triggered

Yeah okay. I'd bet the salvation army is too tough for you.

 

[ch33zw1z]

No, the NRA is an American non-profit that advocates for gun rights.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Rifle_Association


"The National Rifle Association is America's longest-standing civil rights organization. "
Why do you hate civil rights?
https://home.nra.org/

Baaaahahahah, sucker.

 

[Genx87]

Yeah okay. I'd bet the salvation army is too tough for you.

Looks like around 2k in wealth destroyed. Mission accomplished.

 

[fskimospy]

I don't have a problem with this, assuming the schools are very, very careful with safety and storage of the weapons. Like any sport there will be injuries and deaths but sport shooting is fine by me and if kids want to learn gun use/safety that's valuable information in the absence of sane gun laws.

From my perspective this is how almost all guns should be used/stored.

 

[ivwshane]

I know you are a troll. But that thought process can be extended to a lot of things within our school system.

Sure, like science right? Or were you referring to things like teaching creationism?

Hey I'm sorry though, I didn't mean to step on your toes, I didn't realize you worked in the growing field of trap shooting.

 

[Puffnstuff]

Sure, like science right? Or were you referring to things like teaching creationism?

Hey I'm sorry though, I didn't mean to step on your toes, I didn't realize you worked in the growing field of trap shooting.

They don't get it. Even Jesus wouldn't force himself upon people but these religious right wingers do what religious people have done since the beginning which is why Jesus himself had to get between them and a little prostitute at a well to stop a stoning.

 

[Guurn]

I guess you live in an odd inner city bubble. I have many nephews and nieces that get most of their meat via shooting. It serves a real purpose. Of course hunting isn't the reason for the right. Demicide is the reason. 220 million killed in the last century via Demicide, mostly by socialist and communist countries.

 

[Puffnstuff]

I guess you live in an odd inner city bubble. I have many nephews and nieces that get most of their meat via shooting. It serves a real purpose. Of course hunting isn't the reason for the right. Demicide is the reason. 220 million killed in the last century via Demicide, mostly by socialist and communist countries.

Hunting in the woods on your own time and having gun related activities for students at school are two different things.

 

[fskimospy]

I guess you live in an odd inner city bubble. I have many nephews and nieces that get most of their meat via shooting. It serves a real purpose. Of course hunting isn't the reason for the right. Demicide is the reason. 220 million killed in the last century via Demicide, mostly by socialist and communist countries.

If you're trying to figure out who lives in a bubble, what percentage of gun owners do you think use those guns for the purposes of obtaining food? My guess is that percentage is very small.

I always find it odd that people think city dwellers are the ones in a bubble when about 80% of Americans live in urban areas. If anything, people in rural areas are in a bubble.

 

[trenchfoot]

Yeah okay. I'd bet the salvation army is too tough for you.

Blasphemy!! The horror.....the horror. BTW, can I have that firing pin and buffer spring? They still look to be intact. The pins make great toothpicks and the spring makes a nifty mount for my classic foam ball Jack in the Box clown head.

edit - spl

 

[mikeymikec]

Guurn apparently thinks a disorganised multitude of gun fanatics could stop the well-organised, well-trained and well-supplied military from doing whatever they liked.

It would be amusing if you thought that you could even significantly delay the inevitable outcome.

I wonder if people like Guurn think that such an uprising would involve the state sending out a few police cars with police armed with handguns so that people like him can have a dramatic gunfight, rather than say a missile strike against a mildly irksome band of stragglers who have yet to be mopped up, or a military force showing up with a say a tank to pummel your force in the least riskiest fashion possible, let alone that if the worst really did happen and a totalitarian government wanted to suppress all opposition through whatever means available, then chances are they wouldn't be overly concerned about using far uglier methods that have been banned internationally.

 

[Guurn]

I have many family members who were or are in the military. I've asked them point blank, if your CO asked you to fire upon civilians would you...what if they were super libs or nazis.. The answer was always I would shoot my CO even if he was a friend. The military can't be used that way. Yeah, I know you are making a stupid argument on purpose just to get the Afghanistan or Vietnam response. The truth is that the military contains the most ardent supporters of the 2nd amendment because they have seen what happens without it or even if they haven't seen it they understand.

 

[mikeymikec]

I have many family members who were or are in the military. I've asked them point blank, if your CO asked you to fire upon civilians would you...what if they were super libs or nazis.. The answer was always I would shoot my CO even if he was a friend. The military can't be used that way. Yeah, I know you are making a stupid argument on purpose just to get the Afghanistan or Vietnam response. The truth is that the military contains the most ardent supporters of the 2nd amendment because they have seen what happens without it or even if they haven't seen it they understand.

So I guess you don't need firearms in case of an uprising because it could never happen. Well done for torpedoing your own argument, even though your counter-argument was utterly, utterly absurd.

 

[Guurn]

So no counter. Nice easy win, thanks.

 

[fskimospy]

I have many family members who were or are in the military. I've asked them point blank, if your CO asked you to fire upon civilians would you...what if they were super libs or nazis.. The answer was always I would shoot my CO even if he was a friend. The military can't be used that way. Yeah, I know you are making a stupid argument on purpose just to get the Afghanistan or Vietnam response. The truth is that the military contains the most ardent supporters of the 2nd amendment because they have seen what happens without it or even if they haven't seen it they understand.

As a veteran myself and someone with a large number of ex military as my friends I can say that the majority of them are, like me, strong supporters of vastly increased gun control. I know from my experience the scariest places I ever visited were the ones with the least gun control. So while I know the military has some people who are super into guns it has a whole lot who aren't and think our country's gun laws are insanely lax.

 

[fskimospy]

I have many family members who were or are in the military. I've asked them point blank, if your CO asked you to fire upon civilians would you...what if they were super libs or nazis.. The answer was always I would shoot my CO even if he was a friend. The military can't be used that way. Yeah, I know you are making a stupid argument on purpose just to get the Afghanistan or Vietnam response.

Also, this argument is astoudingly naive. If the day ever comes where the military is tasked with firing on civilians (again) it will not come as an order to go shoot some women and children, it will be to 'suppress a riot' or to evict people who have occupied a government building or something to that effect. Everyone is against firing on civilians in principle. In practice however we know plenty of situations where that's not the case.

It's just like when you ask people if they support free speech. Basically 100% of people do. Then you ask them if they support the right of Islamic radicals to preach jihad and suddenly conservatives don't like free speech so much anymore.

 

[mikeymikec]

So no counter. Nice easy win, thanks.

Ok, you need it explaining to you.

Your argument was that you need guns in case the state tries some kind of totalitarian take-over.
I pointed out that the military would be used in such a scenario, which would brush aside any disorganised resistance with ease.
Your counter-argument was that the military could not be used in this fashion because they would never go up against civilians.

Then who is engaging in this uprising exactly? In your fantastical scenario, are the military going to either a) side with the populace (at which point the "secret police" or whomever are going to be going up against an organisation of the best-trained personnel with tonnes of resources and many more years of experience, and what use are a multitude of untrained, disorganised gun nuts going to do that would be of any help), or b) inexplicably sit on the sidelines even though they're apparently all massive 2A (and no doubt other elements of the Constitution) proponents.

What kind of absurd scenario are you banking on exactly?

 

[Guurn]

You are trying to say that my one example would be the absolute rule if it happens? Of course there will be a wide variety of responses even within the military. This is like trying to explain adulthood to a child.

 

[Guurn]

i actually am ok with even radicals having free speech. I'm not ok with radicals shutt

Also, this argument is astoudingly naive. If the day ever comes where the military is tasked with firing on civilians (again) it will not come as an order to go shoot some women and children, it will be to 'suppress a riot' or to evict people who have occupied a government building or something to that effect. Everyone is against firing on civilians in principle. In practice however we know plenty of situations where that's not the case.

It's just like when you ask people if they support free speech. Basically 100% of people do. Then you ask them if they support the right of Islamic radicals to preach jihad and suddenly conservatives don't like free speech so much anymore.

ing down civil discussion.

 

[fskimospy]

You are trying to say that my one example would be the absolute rule if it happens? Of course there will be a wide variety of responses even within the military. This is like trying to explain adulthood to a child.

What I'm telling you is that gun control is a lot more popular in the military than you might expect. Since you do not appear to have any military experience yourself and are instead relying on what family members tell you it is not surprising that you do not know this.

 

[mikeymikec]

I'm not sure who Guurn is responding to in post 120.

 

[mikeymikec]

Also, this argument is astoudingly naive. If the day ever comes where the military is tasked with firing on civilians (again) it will not come as an order to go shoot some women and children, it will be to 'suppress a riot' or to evict people who have occupied a government building or something to that effect. Everyone is against firing on civilians in principle. In practice however we know plenty of situations where that's not the case.

It's just like when you ask people if they support free speech. Basically 100% of people do. Then you ask them if they support the right of Islamic radicals to preach jihad and suddenly conservatives don't like free speech so much anymore.

Furthermore, it's hilarious for anyone to think that the vast majority of people would actually respond with anything even vaguely suggesting that they would be generally OK with shooting civilians if they were ordered to. It reminds me of Baldrick suggesting going around the field hospital asking, "are you a German spy?".

 

[IJTSSG]

As a veteran myself and someone with a large number of ex military as my friends I can say that the majority of them are, like me, strong supporters of vastly increased gun control. I know from my experience the scariest places I ever visited were the ones with the least gun control. So while I know the military has some people who are super into guns it has a whole lot who aren't and think our country's gun laws are insanely lax.

Bullfvckingsh!t